V & V PHARMA INDUSTRIES,THANE vs. ACIT CIR. 3, THANE, THANE

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

391 (Raj) it was held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus. The onus of proof at all relevant times rests upon the assessee. It is for the assessee to establish by evidence that

DCIT CIRCLE- 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SANJIVAINI PARENTERAL LTD., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

391,678,464 160,410,018 11.53% 31.03.2011 1,440,962,506 142,809,317 9.91% 5.2.14 As for circular trading, from the details submitted as verified by the AO during remand proceedings, it can be seen that the Appellant has shown profit ranging from @ 1.96% to 16.67%. From the charging pattern, it is very apparent that the purchases

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S- SANJIVANI PARENTERAL LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

391,678,464 160,410,018 11.53% 31.03.2011 1,440,962,506 142,809,317 9.91% 5.2.14 As for circular trading, from the details submitted as verified by the AO during remand proceedings, it can be seen that the Appellant has shown profit ranging from @ 1.96% to 16.67%. From the charging pattern, it is very apparent that the purchases

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJIVANI PARENTERAL LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

391,678,464 160,410,018 11.53% 31.03.2011 1,440,962,506 142,809,317 9.91% 5.2.14 As for circular trading, from the details submitted as verified by the AO during remand proceedings, it can be seen that the Appellant has shown profit ranging from @ 1.96% to 16.67%. From the charging pattern, it is very apparent that the purchases

ETESH PRAKASH JAIN (HUF),BHIWANDI vs. ITO, WD-1(1), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

391 (Raj) it was held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus. , . 5 ITA No.3353/Mum/2016 & ITA No.3021/Mum/2016 Etesh P Jain HUF, Bhiwandi The onus of proof at all relevant times rests upon the assessee

ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent M/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income –Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

bogus purchases, allegedly declared during the search action conducted by revenue on 4th February 2011. The assessing officer treated the bad debts as colorable device to avoid the tax by holding it as the act of nullifying the reversal of purchases on the profit. The assessee during the assessment proved by furnishing the relevant entries is in the form

CHANDRASHEKHAR NATHALAL TRIVEDI,MIRA ROAD vs. ITO WARD 2 (5), THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

bogus purchases and GP from genuine purchases. He further referred to ten judgments of various co-ordinate Benches on the similar issue. 018. On the issue of notice and satisfaction, he referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11) as well as on approval

ITO WARD 2 (3), THANE vs. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR NATHALAL TRIVEDI , MIRA ROAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

bogus purchases and GP from genuine purchases. He further referred to ten judgments of various co-ordinate Benches on the similar issue. 018. On the issue of notice and satisfaction, he referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11) as well as on approval

JET CHEMICALS P.LTD,KALYAN vs. AST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

391) (Rajasthan HC), it was held that the genuineness of transaction, could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus. There are number of decisions by the various courts where 100% disallowance of bogus purchases, has been upheld. Some of these

FERANI HOTELS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 4 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is allowed

section 148. When the assessee requisitioned the reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer, vide letter dated 5th February 2016, has this to say:- 2. You have submitted vide letter dated 16.12.2015 stating thereby to treat the return filed on 30.09.2011 as return filed in response to notice under sec.148 of the Act. You have also requested to provide

PAWANRAJ P. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WD - 19 (2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the e ground No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 4.32% by the appellant on such purchases.. (c) confirming addition of Rs. 1838022/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

DCIT 15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. A.J. BUILDCON P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

purchase bills and the appellant has merely tried to brush it aside by staling that Ld. AO acted on the opinion of a third party , It is a trite law that at the stage of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, it is not required of the AO to come to a definite conclusion about the quantum of income escaping assessment

HARISONS STEEL LIMITED,WADA THANE vs. DY CIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

391) (Rajasthan HC), it was held that the genuineness of transaction, could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. Hence the department was not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases were bogus. In view of the foregoing discussion, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases/ accommodation entry has to be based

HARISONS STEEL LTD,WADA THANE vs. DCIT 12(2)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

391) (Rajasthan HC), it was held that the genuineness of transaction, could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. Hence the department was not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases were bogus. In view of the foregoing discussion, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases/ accommodation entry has to be based

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SURENDRA KUMAR LADURAM GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

391 made on account of bogus purchases. The grounds of appeal questioned the deletion, citing evidence from DGIT(Inv.) and a statement from Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain indicating accommodation entries.", "held": "The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect of the appeal was Rs. 54,02,573/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh

RAMESH BHURMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodmr. Ramesh Bhurmal Jain Cit(A)-29 106, Samarpan Apartment, C-11, 6Th Floor, 60 Feet Road, Devchand Nagar, R. No. 602, Vs. Bhayander (West), Bkc Bandra, Mumbai – 400 101 Mumbai.

section 234B & 234C of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. Your appellant reserves the right to add, amend delete or alter any or all the above ground of appeal each of which without prejudice to the order.‖ 2. On the other hand, the revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal

SMT. VIJAYLAXMI RAMESH UPADHYAY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-21(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 4 I.T.A. No. 4402, 4403 & 4404/Mum/2018 Smt. Vijalaxmi Ramesh Upadhyay 37,97,895/- on account

HITEN YOGESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26 (1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

bogus purchase bills obtained from the parties identified as hawala dealers as per the enquiry reports of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and admitted by the main persons of the alleged suppliers in their deposition, declaration in the affidavits establishes in Hiten Yogesh Thakkar 4 unequivocal manner the fact that the accounts of the appellant are not correct and based

M/S. FDC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT- 8 (1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

bogus purchases 6.1 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee made suspicious purchases aggregating to Rs.65.56 Lacs from 5 entities as detailed in para 5.1 of the assessment order. Notices issued u/s 133(6) to all the suppliers did not elicit any satisfactory response. Though the 34 M/s FDC Limited Assessment